response 148 of 184:

Feb 4 14:27 UTC 2004

(While the membership of mailing lists may be limited, what people do with
the messages they receive through the mailing lists cannot be.  As an example,
consider the message from Valerie on the current vote.)

response 150 of 184:

Feb 4 18:10 UTC 2004

Jep, your words would carry a lot more weight if you could respond to my
SPECIFIC statements and questions. Putting aside whether or not I have truly
missed the point before today (and I can assure you I have enough character
and principles to refrain deliberate lying) then now is the chance for YOU
to set the record straight. 

If you re-read #146 you will see I admitted perhaps you did not use the
exact words I ascribed to you. You also say that "I think I've pointed out
that your assertion that your comment along these lines is false at least
5 previous times." Great. Please point me to those items. I will be happy
to respond. 

So far all I have to go on is your speculative and unsupported statement
that you believe that restoring the items could harm you and your son. If
you HONESTLY believe that then please provide some examples of the harm
you fear! Surely that is not too much to ask when you are seeking to
censor the words of others. If you don't provide specific examples, then
accusing me of lying does little more than show you are unable to debate
the merits of your proposal. Saying "I have very little confidence that I
can successfully make even this one point, so I am not going to address
other points just now" is a clever little cop-out. It does nothing to
encourage a discussion of your request on the merits. It is the equivalent
to saying "he was mean to me so I'm excused from continuing this debate
and I should automatically get my way." Nice try. 

Perhaps the confidence you lack is in your ability to make any cogent
arguments in support of your drastic request to impose censorship on the
very people who tried to help you. And when you seek to deny the value of
those words to others who may benefit from them, you are showing what I
can only consider to be extreme selfishness. Perhaps you can explain it
some other way. I'll be happy to hear your explanation.

I'll tell you what, jep, we can start fresh right now. You can set forth
your SPECIFIC reasons for stating you believe restoring the items will
cause you and/or your son harm, and I will respond only what you post from
there on out. Or, as an alternative, if you believe you described them to
your satisfaction in the past, then just point me to your post(s). So, are
you going to cop-out again and whine and name-call, or are you willing to
back up your conclusory and speculative statement with actual examples and
arguments? 

response 152 of 184:

Feb 4 19:40 UTC 2004

re resp:150: You have lied, and done it deliberately, cyklone, as I 
demonstrated.  Go back in all of the items where you used that 
statement (and other misinformation) to try to smear me, and apologize, 
and then perhaps we can put all of this behind us and be more civil 
during the next discussion.

We are not going to "start fresh right now" for this discussion, for 
your benefit.  You can.  I'm not participating, though.

I have said all I'm going to say.  (I've said that before.)  I have 
very thoroughly explained my position.  (I said that, too.  In addition 
to doing it, which is itself a certain sort of self-documentation that 
I have done it.)

Additionally, as a bonus, I've answered all of your comments that you 
made in resp:150 already, previously to resp:150, except the highly 
personal insults, about which I don't care, not coming from you, not at 
this point.

Go read what has already been said.  Then you will know all of that 
stuff.  I shouldn't have to spoon feed it to just you for time #9, just 
because you didn't get it the previous 8 times.  It's all there.  All 
of it.  Item:76 (and I said that before, too, quite recently.)

response 154 of 184:

Feb 4 19:57 UTC 2004

There's only so many hours in the day, Jamie.  There are not enough to 
deal with you just now, particularly given the attitude you expressed 
on M-Net, and which I quoted here, that you will go to any lengths at 
all to get your way.

response 158 of 184:

Feb 5 01:36 UTC 2004

Re #155: It would be nice if jep would speak for himself twila.

Jep, if you are such a gutless pussy that you (1) won't recognize an
apology when offered, and (2) refuse to type an extra paragraph to set
forth what you believe you stated over and over, then it is you who are
lying to yourself and others. The fact is, I'm going to go back through
every fucking piece of crap you've written about this, jep, and then we'll
see exactly how specific your were in setting out your reasons for your
request. Of course if you were man enough to simply type that one extra
paragraph or two, you could save me a lot of time. But you seem hell bent
on trying to "punish" me and/or smear me for pointing out the obvious,
which is that your position is utterly unsupportable on a system that
claims to favor free and uncensored speech. Because I believe in those
principles, I'll do the heavy lifting. And fuck you for not being willing
to meet me half way.

response 160 of 184:

Feb 5 02:24 UTC 2004

Well isn't this interesting . . . . .

#330 of 343: by John Ellis Perry Jr. (jep) on Thu, Jan 29, 2004 (21:23):
 re resp:326: I have written at great length and with great patience
 about my request, my decision and my reasoning.  I don't think I have
 any more to say.     

I have already completed copying all of jep's entries in item 76. The
above quote contains a huge lie, which is shown by: 

#153 of 343: by John Ellis Perry Jr. (jep) on Wed, Jan 14, 2004 (09:15):
 re resp:152: Jack, my point in mentioning you is that you're someone
 who doesn't know me very well, yet in resp:115 you referred to me and
 said "unethical" about 4 times.  I didn't mean to pick on you.  I'm
 sorry, because it's clear to me why you'd take it that way.

 I haven't discussed in great detail the reasons I think there is risk
 from those items.  I don't want to.  More detail about that isn't going
 to change the discussion.

 Once again, I'm not trying to change any policies, and I don't think I
 *am* changing any policies.  I'm asking for a very specific exception.
 My request is not a referendum on Valerie or on her actions.


Pay special attention to that middle paragraph, as it is at the heart of
what I have been saying all along. Jep is unwilling to specify why grex
should support his drastic censorship request. He would rather scrunch up
his face, stamp his feet and act all pouty that we dare question his
reasons. He would rather allow others predisposed to doing his favor the
opportunity to create their own worst case scenario to justify censorship.
Jep most certainly does not want to open his true reasons up to any actual
examination. And then, to top it all off, he pretends that he has been
forthcoming all along and the I and others are twisting his words,
notwithstanding his own words in #153 to the contrary.

So, in summary, it is jep who has lied, now saying he has gone into great
detail with his reasons, when his own words indicate he has not discussed
his reasons in any detail and DOESN'T WANT TO! Jep, you not only owe me an
apology (I won't hold my breath though, and can die happy without it), you
owe one to everyone who wants to consider your request ON THE MERITS while
you yourself refuse to specify your reasons. 

Go ahead, call me whatever names you want. Accuse me of all kinds of evil.
I can handle it. What you can't seem to handle though, is being
"convicted" on the basis of your own words (I believe the phrase is
"hoist on your own petard"). Grow up!

response 162 of 184:

Feb 5 03:28 UTC 2004

Actually, I might. It all depends.

response 164 of 184:

Feb 5 05:02 UTC 2004

In #93 slynne wrote:

 My position on this at the moment is that the items should be restored.
 It was not an easy decision for me to come by. I guess I just dont
 think it is ok to give some people control over another person's words
 here...

I don't know if anybody is still wading through this huge item, but in case
anybody is still reading:

The thing I see as a problem with this reasoning is that it is creating a
new rule and applying it to old items.  When I entered my baby diaries,
there was no rule that said who "owned" an item or who could delete it.
Reasonable people made different assumptions about this gray area.  Me,
I always thought that my baby diary was something I could delete myself
or ask a fair witness to delete, at any time.  I made my postings there with
that assumption in mind, never realizing that there was a contentious
issue here.  Other people clearly came to different conclusions.  I think
it is fine to make new rules like this one and apply them to newer items
that are created after the rule is created.  But it doesn't seem right
to me to create a new rule like this one and apply it to an older item.

That baby diary started a year or two before Grex was involved in the
ACLU lawsuit.  And it started long, long, before the recent discussion in
co-op (which I haven't seen) about people deleting their own responses.
All these things have changed how items on Grex are viewed.  That's fine,
but is it right to apply these new rules to items that were created before
those rules were?  I don't think it is.

response 166 of 184:

Feb 5 12:22 UTC 2004

Valerie misses an obvious point: if a subjective rule is to be applied,
then all who posted to her item with a subjective belief of ownership have
just as much right to expect their words to remain under their sole
control. So the real issue is how to reconcile the views of people with
opposing but still subjectively supportable views. I agree with other on
this. Each person who entered words can control those words only. 

response 168 of 184:

Feb 5 14:19 UTC 2004

If I haven't said so before, I'll say it now (but I think I have).  I 
am not giving a blueprint on how to attack me or my son, by explaining 
in great detail my concerns.  At one time, I posted everything that was 
on my mind; someone used it against me; and that could have had really 
horrible results.  I won't repeat the mistake.

That's all you're getting on the subject, cyklone.

response 170 of 184:

Feb 5 19:16 UTC 2004

valerie, I hope that *you* are still reading this item.

> When I entered my baby diaries,
> there was no rule that said who "owned" an item or who could delete it.

You are mistaken, as you found out - picospan/grex *did* have a rule.

> Me, I always thought that my baby diary was something I could delete myself
> or ask a fair witness to delete, at any time.

And when you found out *you* couldn't delete your items, you did not approach
the conf. fw's for assistance - you used the special cfadm account to kill the
items yourself.  This to me shows a mindset of deliberately performing an
unauthorized action, which you knew or should have known would be contentious,
as the ensuing staff discussions proved.

At this point I think it would be better for you not to try to justify your
actions; merely say "I did what I wanted because that's what I wanted,
and because I had the power."  Everyone should understand that, even if they
disagree with that course of action and some want to see it undone.
Just don't try to play the "I didn't know any better" card; that is what 
angers me most, similar to jep trying to justify why his items should be given
special treatment.

response 172 of 184:

Feb 5 23:52 UTC 2004

that's it albaugh, put words in other peoples mouths.  Tell them what they
should say to mek you happy.